https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78071 A subsequent purchaser of premises was not treated as a successor in trade for central excise recovery because there was no transfer of the business, undertaking, or continuity of the defaulting unit. Mere purchase or occupation of land and building was insufficient to fasten the predecessor's duty liability. The amended Section 11 recovery provision, which enabled recovery from a successor from 10-09-2004, was also held inapplicable to a duty demand already confirmed in 1992. The amendment could not operate retrospectively against pre-amendment crystallised dues, so recovery against the purchaser was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78071 A subsequent purchaser of premises was not treated as a successor in trade for central excise recovery because there was no transfer of the business, undertaking, or continuity of the defaulting unit. Mere purchase or occupation of land and building was insufficient to fasten the predecessor's duty liability. The amended Section 11 recovery provision, which enabled recovery from a successor from 10-09-2004, was also held inapplicable to a duty demand already confirmed in 1992. The amendment could not operate retrospectively against pre-amendment crystallised dues, so recovery against the purchaser was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78071